Entropy and the Big Bang

[BJC]

BJC,

 

I cannot make such an assertion concerning the observable universe in this forum but I would in the Speculation Forum I know of a few observation papers over the many years that have concluded that densities vary, but such assertions in my readings over the years, are few and far between. If you have such a link to a scholarly paper concerning observations where the conclusion is otherwise, I would need to read it.

 

best regards

 

 

I was attempting to understand your post of (pantheory, on 4 July 2011 - 11:26 AM) not making any assertion of my own. What then were you trying to say:

pantheory, on 4 July 2011 - 11:26 AM, said:

 

"Instead what we see is generally the same density in the distant universe as we see locally. What we see is that no matter how distant we look the universe seems to be of the same density that we can see in our local neighborhood which seems totally contrary to the BB model. This problem with the standard model is rarely discussed but when it is, the explanations seem totally contrived and unconvincing"

[pantheory]

BJC,

I was attempting to understand your post of (pantheory, on 4 July 2011 - 11:26 AM) not making any assertion of my own. What then were you trying to say:

That's the problem with theorists like myself, there material is never clear

 

What I was trying to say was that Steady State models in general do not have to include an expanding universe, such as the models of yore and my own model for instance. Such theories generally involve a constant density of matter in the universe. Most of such models are infinite models concerning time, space, and matter, but not all.

Edited July 7, 2011 by pantheory

[BJC]

BJC,

That's the problem with theorists like myself, there material is never clear

 

What I was trying to say was that Steady State models in general do not have to include an expanding universe, such as the models of yore and my own model for instance. Such theories generally involve a constant density of matter in the universe. Most of such models are infinite models concerning time, space, and matter, but not all.

Thank you. Difficult at times to relate, especially when the comments are a "conversation between two people".

 

I understand Hoyle et.al. made one last attempt to retain the steady state model by introducing very small amounts of material to maintain the average density

http://en.wikipedia....dy_State_theory

...

The theory requires that new matter must be continuously created (mostly as hydrogen) to keep the average density of matter equal over time. The amount required is low and not directly detectable: roughly one solar mass of baryons per cubic megaparsec per year or roughly one hydrogen atom per cubic meter per billion years, with roughly five times as much dark matter.

-----------------------------------

 

I have been trying to understand Julian Barbour

Julian Barbour's Ideas (The end of Time)

 

Closely related to this work is my study of time. Mach remarked "It is utterly beyond our power to measure the changes of things by time. Quite the contrary, time is an abstraction at which we arrive through the changes of things." Thus, time as such does not exist but only change. Much of my research has been devoted to the implications of this insight. I have shown how, alongside the relativity of motion, the notion of time as change can be built into the foundations of dynamics. In fact, this idea is contained in a hidden form within general relativity. Its potential consequences for the yet to be found quantum mechanics of the universe are profound. The quantum universe is likely to be static. Motion and the apparent passage of time may be nothing but very well founded illusions.

the bold comments are mine.

 

I am not sure how to formulate entropy incorporating only change - especially in the sense that Barbour uses the concept of change.

[pantheory]

BJC,

 

Thanks for that. Haven't heard of Barbour before but greatly like his general perspectives and the quote you presented concerning his related "enlightenments." I may have disagreement with his last two sentences, which I think is only minor compared to the gist of the whole paragraph.

 

The quantum universe is likely to be static.

I probably do not understand what he means by "static." If he means generally unchanging over hundreds of millions of years, I would generally agree.

.

Motions and the apparent passage of time may be notion but very well founded illusion."

As to this quote, although he soften the suggestion by saying "may be," this sentence seems to me as a contradiction to his other statements concerning time, where time accordingly seems to be solely the change between two instances, which is a simple concept and I think the best perspective and definition of it. Change is both measurable and understandable, and the relative dilation of time is comprehensible. For instance "unchanging things," like going backward it time, does not seem reasonable IMO. Motion is also a relative condition and as such is simple to understand, but his last sentence does not seem to fit with the whole concerning his generally enlightening perspectives IMO.

Edited July 8, 2011 by pantheory

[BJC]

BJC,

 

Thanks for that. Haven't heard of Barbour before but greatly like his general perspectives and the quote you presented concerning his related "enlightenments." I may have disagreement with his last two sentences, which I think is only minor compared to the gist of the whole paragraph.

 

 

I probably do not understand what he means by "static." If he means generally unchanging over hundreds of millions of years, I would generally agree.

.

 

As to this quote, although he soften the suggestion by saying "may be," this sentence seems to me as a contradiction to his other statements concerning time, where time accordingly seems to be solely the change between two instances, which is a simple concept and I think the best perspective and definition of it. Change is both measurable and understandable, and the relative dilation of time is comprehensible. For instance "unchanging things," like going backward it time, does not seem reasonable IMO. Motion is also a relative condition and as such is simple to understand, but his last sentence does not seem to fit with the whole concerning his generally enlightening perspectives IMO.

This short (23:09) YouTube video

explains his basic ideas. A more detailed (mathematical) explanation can be found at the Perimeter Institute where Barbour gives a description of his "best matching". Of interest is his derivation (reduction to) General & Special Relativity,

 

Was Spacetime a Glorious Historical Accident?

Perimeter Institute Seminar by Julian Barbour

 

Abstract: Exactly half a century after Minkowski's justly famous lecture, Dirac's efforts to quantize gravity led him "to doubt how fundamental the four-dimensional requirement in physics is". Dirac does not appear to have explored this doubt further, but I shall argue that it needs to be considered seriously. The fact is that Einstein and Minkowski fused space and time into a four-dimensional continuum but never directly posed the two most fundamental questions in dynamics: What is time? What is motion? It was an historical accident that Einstein attempted to implement Mach's principle after he had created special relativity; otherwise he would have been forced to address these questions, which have never been properly considered. I shall show how they can be answered and suggest that: 1) time and space are utterly different; 2) the dynamical law of the universe may define absolute simultaneity in a manner that is still consistent with local validity of Minkowski's marvellous notion of spacetime.

 

I found this talk a bit difficult to follow, for instance at time ~59:00 of the talk he describes why light has a certain velocity:

my notes:

Gravity Forces Fields to Light Speed

 

59:00 interesting talk (not understood) on why everything as light-speed. Essentially when gravity couples with a field it forces that field to conform to gravity (forces light to conform to gravity speed).an additional point is gravity coupled to any field not only forces that field to react a light speed but also forces a Gaussian term – i.e. forces a gauge theory.If you take a whole set of fields and ask what conditions do they interact with themselves (and gravity) it turns out that they must be Yang-Mills fields.

 

 

Getting back to your points:

He asserts that both time and motion are "our artifacts"; thus your statement "where time accordingly seems to be solely the change between two instances" would not reflect his premise. To Barbour the two instances are just that, two instances. Our connecting or sequencing the two instances creates the illusion of change and/or time.

 

 

I suspect Entropy, in Barbour's premise, would be the ratios between the many "not-so-best matching" to the "best matching"

[pantheory]

BJC,

 

On reflection concerning my last posting, I think Barbour when using the words "static universe" means not expanding or contracting. If this is his perspective then it is contrary to the standard model but in-line with own thinking and cosmological model

 

...Of interest is his derivation (reduction to) General & Special Relativity...

I'll have to check that out.

 

....he describes why light has a certain velocity...

Also his perspectives/ hypothesis/ theory on this matter would be cool to check out.

....He asserts that both time and motion are "our artifacts"....

Yeah, on this matter his perspective and related theory differ from my own. And both perspectives differ from the standard model understandings.

 

I suspect Entropy, in Barbour's premise, would be the ratios between the many "not-so-best matching" to the "best matching"

 

I should look at his wrings and the video since many of his ideas sound interesting.

 

regards Forrest

[BJC]

Yeah, on this matter his perspective and related theory differ from my own. And both perspectives differ from the standard model understandings.

I do not think his philosophy differs from other quantum level theories (i.e. string theory), that is, our classical and quantum physics emerges from lower level theories. Max Tegmark ( The Universes of Max Tegmark ) has an interesting mathematical view of theoretical universes.

 

 

One thing that puzzles me is:

The quantum world is consistently stated as being fundamentally different from the classical world;

We use classical concepts of time, space, etc. to (mathematically) describe the quantum world;

Maybe our methods are the cause of "uncertainty", "wave-particle duality", etc. ???

 

A possible analogy could be using the integers to describe irrational or transcendental numbers. At some level you will encounter paradoxical infinities. Not sure if i am describing this very well. Probably does not belong in this topic, maybe not in cosmology.

[pantheory]

I do not think his philosophy differs from other quantum level theories (i.e. string theory), that is, our classical and quantum physics emerges from lower level theories. Max Tegmark ( The Universes of Max Tegmark ) has an interesting mathematical view of theoretical universes.

I'm not fond of complicated science models which I consider much of quantum physics to be. The mathematics are the best analog that we have yet, granted, put together to match what has been observed for the long history that quantum theory has existed. Even though the math is the best available to date, the wording of the theory, I view as senseless or ridiculous

 

One thing that puzzles me is:

The quantum world is consistently stated as being fundamentally different from the classical world;

We use classical concepts of time, space, etc. to (mathematically) describe the quantum world;

Maybe our methods are the cause of "uncertainty", "wave-particle duality", etc. ???

I believe that the way this theory is put together and explained, totally lacking is an understatement -- well that's a conservative description of the entire theory

 

A possible analogy could be using the integers to describe irrational or transcendental numbers. At some level you will encounter paradoxical infinities. Not sure if i am describing this very well. Probably does not belong in this topic, maybe not in cosmology.

 

I believe your explanation is as good as anything I've heard concerning quantum physics

 

I can almost image the "double talking" that I perceive would be involved with a quantum theory (verbal) explanation of entropy.

 

I believe the 20th century will be remembered as a hilarious time when illogical religions, superstitions, and ridiculous science abounded as standard models.

 

I am optimistic concerning the 21st century but I think there's not much to show yet. -- excepting for the internet a wonderful education tool (with a little spammed false info added) -- but to end with a happy face, the progression of science goes through relative stages of enlightenment, ending in better understandings ultimately IMHO

Edited July 10, 2011 by pantheory

[Tom Byers]

It seems to me that if the Big Bang shoots out energy randomly in all directions, this energy will coalesce into particles that are also moving randomly in all directions, so it would be overwhelmingly probable that the universe would start out in a high entropy state and no (or very little) work could be done because everything would be the same temperature.

 

Don't just think in terms of particles but waves. Back in the pre-Heisenberg era wave functions collapsed all by themselves because observation had yet to evolve. A seemingly random wave structure, comparable, say, to the energy signature of pink noise could follow a pattern of cascading collapse in a highly ordered hierarchical meta-wave without appearing complex to the human eyes that did not exist at the time. You have to be careful not to look directly at the cosmic microwave background even today because trying to measure the position and momentum of those old photons could still collapse a wave function the wrong way and mess up the big bang. I would share the equations but I need to get another beer.

[pantheory]

Don't just think in terms of particles but waves. Back in the pre-Heisenberg era wave functions collapsed all by themselves because observation had yet to evolve. A seemingly random wave structure, comparable, say, to the energy signature of pink noise could follow a pattern of cascading collapse in a highly ordered hierarchical meta-wave without appearing complex to the human eyes that did not exist at the time. You have to be careful not to look directly at the cosmic microwave background even today because trying to measure the position and momentum of those old photons could still collapse a wave function the wrong way and mess up the big bang. I would share the equations but I need to get another beer.

Hey Tom, where do you live? I live on the west coast of the US and travel the world. Maybe we c/. ould meet up somewhere since our thinking seems to be parallel, such as pink noise and a beer. My own theory is quite similar since it involves violet noise and a case of beer, implying a strong commonality of interests Please respond.

 

regards, Forrest Noble

Edited July 11, 2011 by pantheory